********************************************************
NOTICE
********************************************************
This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
Word or WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version (above).
*****************************************************************
Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
) File No. EB-00-TC-006
AT&T Communications, Inc. )
) NAL/Acct. No.
200132170015
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture )
ORDER OF FORFEITURE
Adopted: April 12, 2001; Released: April 17, 2001
By the Commission: Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth concurring in
part, dissenting in part, and
issuing a statement.
I. INTRODUCTION
·
In this Order, we assess a forfeiture of $520,000
against AT&T Communications, Inc. (``AT&T'') for willful or
repeated violations of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
(the ``Act''),1 and our rules and orders.2 For the reasons set
forth below, we find that AT&T willfully or repeatedly violated
section 258 of the Act and the Commission's rules and orders by
changing the preferred carriers for 11 telephone lines without
the consumers' authorization, a practice commonly referred to as
``slamming.''
II. BACKGROUND
The facts and circumstances leading to the issuance of
our December 21, 2000 Notice of Apparent Liability (``NAL'') are
fully recited in the NAL and need not be reiterated at length.3
During the course of the year 2000, the Commission received over
1,000 consumer complaints alleging slamming by AT&T.4 The
Commission sent Letters of Inquiry to AT&T requesting additional
information for approximately 70 of these complaints. This
proceeding is based on 12 of those consumer complaints, involving
14 telephone lines. Each complainant asserted that AT&T had
converted his or her designated preferred carrier without
authorization. Each of these 12 complainants provided sworn
statements and evidence in support of his or her complaint.
Following an investigation of the above complaints,
which included an opportunity for AT&T to respond to the
allegations raised by complainants, the Commission issued the
AT&T NAL. There we found that AT&T had apparently failed to
obtain the complainants' authorization before submitting
preferred carrier change requests, in violation of section 258 of
the Act and the Commission's rules and orders against slamming.
Further, we found that AT&T was apparently liable for a proposed
forfeiture of $40,000 for each of 12 violations and $80,000 for
each of two violations, resulting in a total proposed forfeiture
amount of $640,000.5
III. DISCUSSION
In its response to the NAL, AT&T does not deny that it
submitted preferred carrier change orders to the complainants'
local exchange carriers; however, AT&T contests the Commission's
finding of apparent liability and proposal of a forfeiture
penalty. We take up AT&T's arguments in turn.
A. Undisputed Conversions
Regarding six of the apparent slamming violations, AT&T
acknowledges that the lines were changed to AT&T without the
consumers' authorization due to ``processing'' or ``data entry''
errors.6 AT&T argues that the proposed forfeiture amounts
associated with these complaints should be rescinded or
significantly reduced. As a basis for this argument, AT&T states
that it did not intend to slam any of these lines and that the
NAL does not make any finding, or cite any evidence, that AT&T
was negligent in attempting to comply with the Commission's
carrier selection rules. But, neither the Act nor our rules
require evidence of specific intent or negligence to support the
finding of a violation. Section 258 and our rules impose
liability for any unauthorized change in a subscriber's preferred
carrier, whether intentional or inadvertent.7
AT&T argues that the imposition of a large forfeiture
when there has been no finding of fault ``cannot provide any
incentive to a carrier to conform to the Commission's carrier
selection rules.''8 This argument is unpersuasive. As we said
in the Section 258 Order, holding carriers liable for both
inadvertent and intentional unauthorized changes to subscribers'
preferred carriers will reduce the overall incidence of slamming
and is consistent with section 258.9 We fail to see how finding
a violation, without an assessment of a meaningful penalty, would
accomplish that objective.10 Furthermore, the Commission has
expressed concern that forfeiture penalties in general be
sufficiently high so as not to be considered an ``affordable cost
of doing business.''11 We therefore conclude that the base
forfeiture amount of $40,000 per violation is appropriate for
each of these six violations.
AT&T also argues that the imposition of a large
forfeiture is unwarranted under the Commission's announced
policies and rules.12 Specifically, AT&T contends that in
proposing the base forfeiture amount of $40,000 per violation,
the Commission did not take into account as a mitigating factor
the company's history of overall compliance with the Commission's
slamming rules.13 In support of this argument, AT&T contends that
it has "led the industry in preserving and enhancing the
integrity of the presubscription process."14 AT&T points to the
fact that it petitioned the Commission to initiate the rule
making that ultimately extended third party verification of
carrier changes obtained through telemarketing to the entire
industry. AT&T also states that in 1998 it created an internal
"Slamming Resolution Center" to handle consumer slamming
complaints. We are not convinced that these actions demonstrate
a history of overall compliance with the slamming rules
justifying a reduction in the proposed forfeiture amount. AT&T's
actions may demonstrate the company's commitment to complying
with the Act, but do not prove the company's success in doing so.
We note that AT&T's substantial market share provided the company
ample incentive to support implementation of the Commission's
strong verification standards. Likewise, the creation of a
"Slamming Resolution Center" may well demonstrate AT&T's
commitment to assist consumers that have made slamming
allegations; it does not prove anything regarding the actual
incidence of slamming.
AT&T also cites to statistical analyses of consumer
slamming complaints filed with the Commission that, according to
AT&T, demonstrate its slamming compliance.15 For example, the
1997 Scorecard shows that AT&T received the highest number of
consumer slamming complaints for the 1996 calendar year, 1,866,
but that its slamming "complaint ratio" was the lowest for the
seven carriers16 served with more than 100 slamming complaints
during that year.17 We are not persuaded to reduce the forfeiture
amount based on these statistics. AT&T has provided statistics
primarily regarding slamming complaints it received from the
Commission for calendar years 1995 through June 199918. But,
neither the raw number of slamming complaints served by the
Commission, nor AT&T's "complaint ratio," demonstrate AT&T's
actual compliance with the Act. Just as we would not increase
the amount of a forfeiture based solely on the fact that a large
number of complaints had been lodged against the carrier, so we
decline to reduce a proposed forfeiture based solely on the fact
that a carrier may have had relatively few complaints lodged
against it as compared to its revenues. We therefore find that
AT&T has failed to demonstrate a history of compliance warranting
a reduction of the proposed forfeiture amount.
Finally, AT&T suggests that based on its longstanding
cooperation with the Commission in addressing slamming
complaints, the allegations made in the NAL could have been
resolved with the Commission without the issuance of a NAL.
According to AT&T, ``[i]f the Commission had discussed with AT&T
the specific claims that form the basis for the NAL, those
disputes could readily have been resolved, either by provision of
the additional information discussed in this submission or an
appropriate negotiated outcome.''19 AT&T seemingly
misunderstands the procedure contemplated under section 503(b) of
the Act. Section 503(b) provides that a carrier will be given an
opportunity to address the allegations in the NAL by filing a
response to the NAL.20 It does not require that the carrier be
given an opportunity to address those allegations prior to
issuance of the NAL. Even so, before issuing the NAL, Commission
staff requested further information from AT&T regarding
approximately 70 slamming complaints, including the 12 at issue
here. AT&T therefore had every opportunity to propose a
``negotiated outcome'' of this matter prior to issuance of the
NAL if it determined it was in its interest to do so .21
B. LOA Complaint
With respect to the complaint filed by Ms. Palacio,
AT&T argues that a finding of liability is unsupported by the
facts surrounding the allegations. 22 According to AT&T, at the
time AT&T processed the change of Ms. Palacio's lines, AT&T did
not know or have reason to know that the signature on the LOA was
not authentic.23 As stated above, section 258 and our rules
impose liability whether a slam is intentional or not.
Furthermore, section 503(b) of the Act gives the Commission
authority to assess a forfeiture penalty against a common carrier
if the Commission determines that the carrier has ``willfully or
repeatedly'' failed to comply with the provisions of the Act or
with any rule, regulation or order issued by the Commission.24
For a violation to be willful under section 503(b), it need not
be intentional.25 AT&T therefore cannot escape liability for
switching Ms. Palacio's two lines, even if it did not have actual
or constructive notice that the signature on the LOA was not
authentic.
In addition, AT&T maintains that it had taken
reasonable steps to maintain the integrity of such carrier
changes. Specifically, AT&T asserts that its marketing agent
voluntarily implemented a policy of terminating employees found
to have engaged in slamming prior to processing the Palacio
switch. Therefore, according to AT&T, the facts surrounding the
unauthorized conversations do not support a finding of
liability.26 Although we applaud the efforts of AT&T and all
carriers that implement procedures to combat slamming, the mere
practice of terminating employees found to have engaged in
slamming does not negate liability should slams nonetheless
occur.27 Hence, we find AT&T liable for the unauthorized
conversion of Ms. Palacio's two lines.
We further find that a forfeiture penalty of $80,000
apiece for the unauthorized conversion of Ms. Palacio's two lines
is appropriate. The Commission has consistently issued
forfeitures at $80,000 per violation for the use of forged
LOAs.28 In these orders, the Commission found that the higher
forfeiture amount was warranted by the egregious nature of the
misconduct.29 AT&T has provided us with no reason to change our
practice in this situation. To the extent that AT&T argues that
the Commission has granted substantial forfeiture reductions
after finding ``particularly egregious conduct,'' the consent
decree cited is not relevant to our determination in this case.30
Under the terms of the consent decree, the Commission made no
finding of liability.31 Accordingly, the Commission did not
assess a forfeiture penalty for the alleged violations discussed
in its NAL.
C. Third Party Verification Complaints
With respect to these remaining preferred carrier
changes,32 AT&T maintains that it should not be found liable
because AT&T asserts it verified each of these carrier changes in
accordance with Commission rules. As a preliminary matter, we
note that a change that has not been properly authorized in the
first instance, cannot be ``properly verified.''33 Moreover, our
rules relating to third-party verification require that ``an
appropriately qualified independent third party has obtained the
subscriber's oral authorization to submit the preferred carrier
change order that confirms and includes appropriate verification
data. . . . The content of the verification must include clear
and conspicuous confirmation that the subscriber has authorized a
preferred carrier change.''34
In support of its claim that it properly verified Ms.
Plunkett's order for local service, AT&T provided a document with
a table showing the word ``pass'' and ``2/8/00 08:49PM'' next to
each of the following ``TPV Type'' categories: ``local,''
``intraLATA,'' and ``interLATA.''35 In the NAL, the Commission
found AT&T was apparently liable for slamming Ms. Plunkett's
service because the table did not provide sufficient evidence of
``clear and conspicuous confirmation'' that Ms. Plunkett
authorized a change of her local service. To counter the
Commission's finding, AT&T provides a declaration from its third
party verifier attesting that "the term 'pass' [during a
verification] in fact indicates that the customer separately
affirmed her selection of AT&T for each of the services shown
there.''36 We are not persuaded that AT&T received Ms.
Plunkett's authorization to switch her local service or,
therefore, that AT&T's third-party verifier properly obtained Ms.
Plunkett's oral verification of such authorization. Ms. Plunkett
states in her complaint that AT&T was already her preferred long
distance provider.37 Southwestern Bell Telephone (SBC), Ms.
Plunkett's LEC, verified that AT&T had been her long distance
provider since October 1999, and provided evidence that on March
24, 2000, it received a mechanized order from AT&T to change only
Ms. Plunkett's local service.38 The term ``pass'' on a document
next to three different AT&T service offerings that were
allegedly ordered on February 8, 2000, fails to provide evidence
of a ``clear and conspicuous confirmation'' that Ms. Plunkett
authorized the change to her local service provider that occurred
on March 24, 2000. We therefore find AT&T liable for the
unauthorized conversion of Ms. Plunkett's line.
AT&T also states that the line on the document,
``Unique TPV ID: 1016,'' is identifying information (Ms.
Plunkett's birthdate) proving that its verifier properly obtained
Ms. Plunkett's verification.39 The issue here is not whether a
verifier spoke with Ms. Plunkett, but whether Ms. Plunkett
authorized a change to her local service. AT&T asserts that its
third party verifier verified authorization of three different
AT&T services during a conversation with Ms. Plunkett on February
8, 2000. Ms. Plunkett contends that she did not give AT&T
authorization to switch her local service provider. We find that
the identifying information provided by AT&T does not rebut that
allegation.
As to the Krumweide complaint, upon closer examination
of the record it appears Ms. Krumweide may have authorized AT&T
to change her preferred interstate and intrastate long distance
provider. Ms. Krumweide states in her complaint that she was
``slammed'' and did not authorize a preferred carrier change. A
handwritten note attached to her complaint implies that Ms.
Krumweide believed she was slammed because she requested, but did
not receive, AT&T's ``One Rate Five Cent Plan."40 Rather, the
evidence suggests that because her LEC is a small independent
telephone company, Nemont Telephone Cooperative, Inc., the
requested plan was not available and Ms. Krumweide was charged a
higher rate.41 Based on this conflicting evidence, we
accordingly do not find AT&T liable for the unauthorized
conversion of Ms. Krumweide's line and will reduce the proposed
forfeiture amount by $40,000.
AT&T maintains that it received authority to change Mr.
Agnew's service for two lines during a telemarketing call to his
business on April 5, 2000.42 Prior to issuance of the NAL, AT&T
failed to submit evidence to support its assertion that it
received authorization and properly verified the purported change
request. In response to the NAL, however, AT&T submits a
declaration from a third party verifier along with an audio
recording of what it represents to be verification of the change
request by Mr. Agnew. The tape demonstrates that the third party
verifier asked Mr. Agnew "[d]o you understand that you're
authorizing AT&T to switch the long distance service to AT&T?"
Mr. Agnew answers this question in the affirmative. The tape,
therefore, persuades us that Mr. Agnew authorized or confirmed
the change and we accordingly will reduce the proposed forfeiture
amount by $40,000 for each of his two lines for a total reduction
of $80,000.
AT&T maintains that a finding of liability with respect
to the Ortega and Patterson complaints would be misplaced. AT&T
acknowledges that ``confirmation of the carrier changes was
obtained by AT&T's verification agent from an individual other
than the complaining consumer.'' AT&T does not contest that the
persons from whom they received ``verification'' were not, in
fact, authorized to confirm those carrier changes. AT&T goes on
to state that such ``actual'' authority is irrelevant to a
determination of whether AT&T slammed these consumers. We
disagree. A carrier cannot comply with the Commission's
verification procedures if it receives confirmation from an
individual not authorized to make the change.43 We therefore
find AT&T liable for the unauthorized conversion of the Ortega
and Patterson complaints.
IV. CONCLUSION
After reviewing the information filed by AT&T in its
Response, we find that AT&T has failed to identify facts or
circumstances to persuade us that there is any basis for
reconsidering the AT&T NAL, except with regard to the Krumweide
and Agnew complaints as discussed above. Further, AT&T has not
shown any mitigating circumstances sufficient to warrant a
reduction of the forfeiture penalty for the remaining 11
violations.
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Section 503(b)
of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 503(b), and Section 1.80(f)(4) of the
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f)(4), that AT&T
Communications, Inc. SHALL FORFEIT to the United States
Government the sum of five hundred twenty thousand dollars
($520,000) for violating Sections 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. §
258, as well as the Commission's rules and orders governing
preferred carrier conversions.44
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order of
Forfeiture shall be sent by certified United States mail to AT&T
Communications, Inc., 295 North Maple Avenue, Basking Ridge, New
Jersey, 07920.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Magalie Roman Salas
Secretary
STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER HAROLD FURCHTGOTT-ROTH, CONCURRING IN
PART, DISSENTING IN PART
RE: AT&T COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ORDER OF FORFEITURE, FILE NO. EB
98-00-TC-006, NAL/ACCT. NO. 200132170015.
I support vigorous enforcement of the statutory prohibition
against slamming and agree with the Commission's finding of
liability here. However, with respect to six of the violations
at issue - the so-called ``undisputed conversions'' - I dissent
from the Commission's determination of the amount of forfeiture.
As AT&T explains (and no one disputes), these violations were
caused wholly by processing or data entry errors. In other
words, AT&T in no way intended to slam these customers, had
procedures in place to prevent slamming, but erroneously changed
these customers' preferred carriers. In such circumstances,
assessing the standard forfeiture amount is inappropriate.
While I do not, at present, challenge the strict liability
standard imposed by the Commission for slamming, it is essential
that the use of such a standard be accompanied by considerable
discretion. Companies like AT&T process millions of change
orders each year, and it is impossible to eliminate all mistakes.
As the Commission acknowledged in announcing its strict liability
standard, ``even with the greatest care, innocent mistakes will
occur and may result in unauthorized changes.'' Implementation
of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Second Report and Order and
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 1508 (1998)
[¶52]. The Commission thus stated that, in exercising its
forfeiture authority, it would ``take into consideration in any
enforcement action the willfulness of the carriers involved.''
Id. Accordingly, the Commission's rules explicitly require it to
consider the ``degree of culpability'' in determining the amount
of forfeiture penalty. 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4).
The Commission has failed to follow these rules here. In
terms of culpability, AT&T's unintentional violations of the
slamming rules pale in comparison to most of those that we have
previously penalized. The record shows that AT&T has in place a
comprehensive system to prevent slamming, which, although not
perfect, is among the best in the industry. In these
circumstances, the penalty for slamming should be significantly
reduced. At the very least, the Commission should have given
these mitigating factors substantial consideration in making its
decision.
_________________________
1 Section 258 states in pertinent part that ``no
telecommunications carrier shall submit . . . a change in a
subscriber's selection of a provider of telephone exchange
service or telephone toll service except in accordance with such
verification procedures as the Commission shall prescribe.'' 47
U.S.C. § 258.
2 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1100, 64.1150. Sections 64.1100 and 64.1150
are now codified at section 64.1120. 65 FR 47678, 47690 (2000).
Because the apparent violations occurred prior to November 28,
2000, the effective date of the revised rules, sections 64.1100
and 64.1150 were the applicable Commission rules in effect during
the relevant time period. See also Implementation of the
Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Policies and Rules Concerning
Unauthorized Changes of Consumers' Long Distance Carriers, Second
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14
FCC Rcd 1508 (1998) (Section 258 Order), stayed in nonrelevant
part, MCI WorldCom v. FCC, No. 99-1125 (D.C. Cir. May 18, 1999),
stay dissolved, MCI WorldCom v. FCC, No. 99-1125 (D.C. Cir. June
27, 2000); Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Memorandum
Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 10674 (1997).
3 AT&T Communications, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 438 (2000) (AT&T NAL).
4 Contrary to AT&T's response we don't believe it is
inappropriate to reference the number of complaints received by
the Commission as background information. AT&T Opposition filed
Jan. 22, 2001 at 27 (Response).
5 AT&T NAL, 16 FCC Rcd at 438. The Commission has authority
pursuant to section 503(b) of the Act to assess a forfeiture
penalty against a common carrier if the Commission determines
that the carrier has ``willfully or repeatedly'' failed to comply
with the provisions of the Act or with any rule, regulation, or
order issued by the Commission. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b). See
Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section
1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,
Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17097 (1997) (Forfeiture
Policy Statement).
6 Response at 20-21. The six complaints at issue here are
Complaint dated April 12, 2000, from Phyllis Crawford; Complaint
dated May 15, 2000, from David S. Scott; Complaint dated March
15, 2000 from Bernhard L. Hanavan; Complaint dated August 10,
2000, from Esta Schuerholz; Complaint dated September 5, 2000,
from Steven R. Rosenberg; and Complaint dated October 18, 2000,
from David Dinerman.
7 Section 258 Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 1539.
8 Response at 22.
9 Section 258 Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 1540.
10 Our determination that assessing a forfeiture penalty is
likely to have a greater deterrent effect than not assessing one
is consistent with the legislative history of section 503(b).
The legislative history demonstrates Congress's concern that the
Commission would have authority to `` impose forfeitures
sufficiently high to deter violations and constitute a meaningful
sanction when violations occur.'' Forfeiture Policy Statement,
12 FCC Rcd at 17089.
11 Id. at 17099-100.
12 Response at 22.
13 47 CFR § 1.80(b)(4) Section II.
14 Response at 3.
15 Response at 4, citing "Common Carrier Scorecard, Fall
1996," Industry Analysis Division, Common Carrier Bureau; "Common
Carrier Scorecard, December 1997," Industry Analysis Division,
Common Carrier Bureau (1997 Scorecard); "Common Carrier
Scorecard, November, 1998," Enforcement and Industry Analysis
Divisions, Common Carrier Bureau; "The FCC Telephone Consumer
Complaint Scorecard," Common Carrier Bureau, December 1998;
"Trends In Telephone Service, March 2000," Industry Analysis
Division.
16 The report separated carriers from resellers based on the
companies' self-identification as submitted on the
Telecommunications Relay Service Fund Worksheet. 1997 Scorecard
at 32.
17 Id. The complaint ratio is a measure of the overall number
of complaints directed against a carrier adjusted by the
carrier's revenues. Thus, the ratio permits rough comparison of
the number of slamming complaints as between large and small
carriers.
18 We note that, as part of a consent decree arising out of an
earlier Notice of Apparent Liability, the Common Carrier Bureau
agreed not to initiate on its own motion forfeiture proceedings
for any informal consumer slamming complaints prior to August 1,
1996. American Telephone and Telegraph Corporation, Order and
Consent Decree, 11 FCC Rcd 17312, 17318 (Com. Car. Bur. 1996).
19 Response at 23-24.
20 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(4).
21 The Commission is not obligated to disclose any facts it
uncovers during the course of an investigation prior to issuance
of a NAL.
22 Response at 8-12.
23 Id. at 10.
24 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B).
25 Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd 4387 (1991).
AT&T appears to argue that the Commission based its finding of
liability for Ms. Palacio's preferred-carrier changes upon a
determination that AT&T was aware that the LOA signature might
have been forged. Response at 9-10. The NAL states, however,
that AT&T's response to Ms Palacio's complaint did not dispute
her allegation of forgery. AT&T NAL, 16 FCC Rcd at 445. Based
on our discussion of Section 258's strict liability standard, it
was not necessary to make such a determination of intent.
26 Response at 11-12.
27 See Coleman Enterprises, Inc., Order of Forfeiture, 15 FCC
Rcd 24385, 24388 (2000).
28 Brittan Communications International Corp., Order of
Forfeiture 15 FCC Rcd 4852 (2000) (Brittan Forfeiture Order);
Amer-I-Net Services Corp., Order of Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 3118
(2000) (Amer-I-Net Forfeiture Order); All American Telephone
Company, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 13
FCC Rcd 15040 (1998) (All American NAL).
29 See, e.g. Brittan Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4855.
30 Response at 23, n.38 citing Qwest Communications
International, Inc., Order and Consent Decree, 15 FCC Rcd 14699
(2000) (Qwest Consent).
31 Qwest Consent, 15 FCC Rcd at 14705.
32 Complaint dated August 29, 2000, from Tracie Ortega;
Declaration of Thomas H. Patterson dated June 6, 2000; Complaint
dated April 10, 2000, from Theresa M. Plunkett (Plunkett
Complaint); Complaint dated July 27, 2000, from Mari Krumwiede
(Krumwiede Complaint); and Complaint dated June 21, 2000, from
Robert Agnew.
33 47 CFR 64.1150.
34 47 C.F.R. § 64.1150(d).
35 AT&T NAL, 16 FCC Rcd at para 24.
36 Response, Exhibit D2 at 2.
37 AT&T NAL, 16 FCC Rcd at 447. Ms. Plunkett's local exchange
carrier also verified that AT&T was Ms. Plunkett's preferred long
distance provider. The evidence provided by AT&T also uses the
term "pass" in relationship to Ms. Plunkett's long distance
service.
38 Response to Plunkett Complaint from Southwestern Bell
Telephone Company, dated May 30, 2000.. This report does not
distinguish between intrastate and interstate long distance. It
simply states that AT&T was Ms. Plunkett's long distance
provider.
39 Response at n. 25.
40 Krumwiede Complaint.
41 Response to Krumwiede Complaint from Nemont Telephone
Cooperative, Inc. dated Oct. 20, 2000.
42 Response at 15-16.
43 See Brittan Communications International, Inc., Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 14 FCC Rcd 296-97(1998).
There is no evidence in the record indicating that the persons
who allegedly confirmed these changes misrepresented their
identities to AT&T's third party verifier, or that they were even
known by the complainants.
44 The forfeiture amount should be paid by check or money order
drawn to the order of the Federal Communications Commission.
AT&T should include the reference ``NAL/Acct. No. 200132170015''
on AT&T Communications, Inc.'s check or money order. Such
remittance must be mailed to Forfeiture Collection Section,
Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box.
73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482. Requests for full payment
under an installment plan should be sent to: Chief, Credit and
Debt Management Center, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20554. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.